Climate change and human responsibility

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by belsarius

A perfectly profitable one that is killing the planet. I agree that government shoulder even more to blame than the corporations, however covering up information about the dangers of a product to make profit isn't just capitalism. We have many laws against that and how we expect corporations to act within a certain ethical boundary - see the Ford Pinto.

Governments and people have turned a blind eye to the oil companies wrongdoing because we want oil, we want convenience and we arn't prepared for the hardship. But governments are also held to the whim of the lobbyists. The companies are using their power and influence to slow down government action and keep profits going. They are pushing for laws that impede green energy while simultaneously pushing for increased oil production at a time where we KNOW what the catastrophic results are.

They gamed the system, they abused the system and they gaslit society. They aren't acting "within the system", they are controlling the system for their own ends.

They may not shoulder 100% of the blame, but the original claim that the user should be held to blame instead of the corporations is Ludacris.

So we have all known for 30 years the seriousness. Do you know how flacid it comes across to stamp your feet and still blame oil companies after all this time? We are the ones consuming it, precisely because it is cheap and easy. If there was a cheap and easy alternative, we would have switched. There isn't, and it isn't the fault of the oil companies. It's the fault of simple irrefutable physics and chemistry. Without oil, our lives would be much harder and more expensive.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So we have all known for 30 years the seriousness. Do you know how flacid it comes across to stamp your feet and still blame oil companies after all this time? We are the ones consuming it, precisely because it is cheap and easy. If there was a cheap and easy alternative, we would have switched. There isn't, and it isn't the fault of the oil companies. It's the fault of simple irrefutable physics and chemistry. Without oil, our lives would be much harder and more expensive.

It isn't cheap. We are not pricing in the externalities of it's use. And when someone tries to do that, with say a carbon tax, the entire industry loses it's mind and spends millions fighting it. To the point where even our governments are spending millions and end up fighting cartoon characters who might be anti-oil.

You talk about not having a better alternative, but the reason we don't is directly because of the oil companies lobbying against those alternatives.

We are a drug user and they are our pushers. And anytime someone else tries to help us break the addiction, they get knifed by the pusher. And somehow the pusher is absolved of any wrongdoing because they are just trying to make their profits?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by belsarius

It isn't cheap. We are not pricing in the externalities of it's use. And when someone tries to do that, with say a carbon tax, the entire industry loses it's mind and spends millions fighting it. To the point where even our governments are spending millions and end up fighting cartoon characters who might be anti-oil.

You talk about not having a better alternative, but the reason we don't is directly because of the oil companies lobbying against those alternatives.

We are a drug user and they are our pushers. And anytime someone else tries to help us break the addiction, they get knifed by the pusher. And somehow the pusher is absolved of any wrongdoing because they are just trying to make their profits?

I don't buy in to your narrative at all. Some grand conspiracy where every government on the planet is working with Big Oil to keep technologies that totally exist and easily replace oil are held down...


Or, the reality that cheap energy is a necessity to our modern civilization, and it's really really hard to come up with a alternative, despite decades of R&D and investments, what we have is the best we can achieve. It'll get better, but it takes time.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by belsarius

It isn't cheap. We are not pricing in the externalities of it's use. And when someone tries to do that, with say a carbon tax, the entire industry loses it's mind and spends millions fighting it. To the point where even our governments are spending millions and end up fighting cartoon characters who might be anti-oil.

You talk about not having a better alternative, but the reason we don't is directly because of the oil companies lobbying against those alternatives.

We are a drug user and they are our pushers. And anytime someone else tries to help us break the addiction, they get knifed by the pusher. And somehow the pusher is absolved of any wrongdoing because they are just trying to make their profits?

The comparison makes no sense. Abused drugs aren't required for a human to survive. But energy is.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by belsarius

It isn't cheap. We are not pricing in the externalities of it's use.

What if we are pricing it in? What if humanity considers the negative and positive externalities and decides that for the current time, the positives outweigh the negative. What are the negative externalities to humanity without rapid, long distance motorized ground and air transport? What are the negative externalities of no heat in winter (just look at Europe restarting coal plants and begging Russia for gas)?

The story of energy over the last 30 years is basically the story of China. Without 2.5 billion tonnes of increased coal consumption/year, it doesn't have the energy to develop, industrialize and get rich.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by accord1999

What if we are pricing it in? What if humanity considers the negative and positive externalities and decides that for the current time, the positives outweigh the negative. What are the negative externalities to humanity without rapid, long distance motorized ground and air transport? What are the negative externalities of no heat in winter (just look at Europe restarting coal plants and begging Russia for gas)?

The story of energy over the last 30 years is basically the story of China. Without 2.5 billion tonnes of increased coal consumption/year, it doesn't have the energy to develop, industrialize and get rich.

The only way that argument makes sense is if you use a short term time frame. Having a 100 year run with living the good life is great for the people living in that time frame, but then everyone living when the consequences come down are screwed.

Humans in general are terrible at looking at anything beyond the shortest term time frames. Alberta's 4th covid wave is a prime example. They could have kept restrictions in for a few more weeks and avoided it all but needed to be 'open for summer' so hundreds of people died.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

The only way that argument makes sense is if you use a short term time frame. Having a 100 year run with living the good life is great for the people living in that time frame, but then everyone living when the consequences come down are screwed.

That's how humanity makes decision. Trying to plan 100 years into the future is practically impossible, I doubt anybody 100 years ago, when oil started to replace coal for transport fuel, could imagine how much coal would be burned today to generate electricity and steel.

Alberta's 4th covid wave is a prime example. They could have kept restrictions in for a few more weeks and avoided it all but needed to be 'open for summer' so hundreds of people died.

But highly vaccinated European countries that held off opening till later, like Denmark, are seeing a surge in cases again as temperatures cool down. I don't think we'll really know how bad the Alberta decision really was until next spring.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

The only way that argument makes sense is if you use a short term time frame. Having a 100 year run with living the good life is great for the people living in that time frame, but then everyone living when the consequences come down are screwed.

Humans in general are terrible at looking at anything beyond the shortest term time frames. Alberta's 4th covid wave is a prime example. They could have kept restrictions in for a few more weeks and avoided it all but needed to be 'open for summer' so hundreds of people died.

If you looked at agricultural capacity in 1960 and projected it to today’s population the world would have needed drastic population controls and we would be currently having mass starvation. We don’t. So how do you plan for the increasing technological capacity? Could you have justified limiting family size in the 60s in order to solve the over population problem today? Or do you deal with more acute problems that are solvable?

[Geraldsh]

In the mid 1900’s India’s population was held in check by starvation. Then a nice Canadian chap- can’t remember his name- developed a drought and frost resistant wheat. Look at their numbers now.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by GGG

If you looked at agricultural capacity in 1960 and projected it to today’s population the world would have needed drastic population controls and we would be currently having mass starvation. We don’t. So how do you plan for the increasing technological capacity? Could you have justified limiting family size in the 60s in order to solve the over population problem today? Or do you deal with more acute problems that are solvable?

I'm not arguing that fossil fuels weren't ever needed.

We need lots of energy to survive today. We also need to drastically reduce our reliance on fossil fuels so future generations can survive in 100+ years.

[blender]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

The comparison makes no sense. Abused drugs aren't required for a human to survive. But energy is.

Had to jump in to quote this gem!
Humans had tens of thousands of years of survival before we discovered oil!

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by blender

Had to jump in to quote this gem!
Humans had tens of thousands of years of survival before we discovered oil!

This is true. So I assume you have sworn off consuming oil and all products produced and transported with oil?

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

This is true. So I assume you have sworn off consuming oil and all products produced and transported with oil?

Got em

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

This is true. So I assume you have sworn off consuming oil and all products produced and transported with oil?

Have you sworn off clean air and drinking water?


See its just as stupid a comment when it is reversed,

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Geraldsh

In the mid 1900’s India’s population was held in check by starvation. Then a nice Canadian chap- can’t remember his name- developed a drought and frost resistant wheat. Look at their numbers now.

One of the great - and greatly under-recognized - accomplishments of humanity was virtually eliminating the scourge of famine in the short space of a few decades in the mid 20th century.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by blender

Had to jump in to quote this gem!
Humans had tens of thousands of years of survival before we discovered oil!

Took over 10,000 years for the population to reach 2 billion, you know the rest.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

One of the great - and greatly under-recognized - accomplishments of humanity was virtually eliminating the scourge of famine in the short space of a few decades in the mid 20th century.

It is rather remarkable.

And there is no reason to think that we wouldn't continue to see advancements in crop science.

[Daradon]

Been gone five years and all the 'adults' are still arguing if the earth is flat.

The fact that this doesn't swing 90%+ is just flipping embarrassing.

[AltaGuy]

I always look at SUV prevalence as the surest sign that we are, in fact, doomed. As a society, we couldn't even collectively decide that personal consumption of stupid, harmful and easily replaceable automobiles was actually morally reprehensible.

There's plenty blame to go around for all of humanity's crap decisions over the past thirty years. I think we are past the point of no return on climate change, and billions will likely die because of our particular era's choices. Plenty of moral culpability to go around for future humans to dissect.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

I always look at SUV prevalence as the surest sign that we are, in fact, doomed. As a society, we couldn't even collectively decide that personal consumption of stupid, harmful and easily replaceable automobiles was actually morally reprehensible.

There's plenty blame to go around for all of humanity's crap decisions over the past thirty years. I think we are past the point of no return on climate change, and billions will likely die because of our particular era's choices. Plenty of moral culpability to go around for future humans to dissect.

It's weird because during the 70's gas crises countries limited speed, and crippled vehicles in the name of conservation. Nowadays we have 400HP giant grocery getters, and very little regulatory action. Governments could insist vehicles get built to a better standard, but do not. So consumers take it as assign it's not important.


I couldn't imagine the outrage if they tried to re-introduce the types of restrictions that existed int he 70's. But maybe it's time they do more, because people don't give a crap when left to their own decisions.